Why Lily Ledbetter is Controversial

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Your site is very convenient in navigation and has good design. Thanks!.
I am from Brunei and now teach English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Cytomel cytomel synthroid save on quality prescriptions, brand name drugs."
:D Thanks in advance. Tova.

Tova of WV 8:42PM May 21, 2009

I don't think Marth Burk thought out that statement she made because a very strict rule for most companies is to NOT discuss pay with other workers. It was not Ledbetter's fault that she isn't preoccupied in other co-workers personal buisness. Although she agrees with the fatc that an employee must not discuss pay with other employees, how exactly was Lilly supposed to be aware of the situation?

Anonymous of PA 9:28PM April 07, 2009

The claim that the law would force companies to "settle claims that might pop up years after litigating employees had departed" seems totally bogus, since claims can only be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck. Also, there are limits on the penalties that can be assessed and the time period that can be covered. I'm certainly not in favor of any lawyers' bonanzas, but this law seems very reasonable to me.

Dan of AZ 11:36PM February 03, 2009

The Ledbetter Act does not guarantee equal pay for equal work, that is what the Equal Pay Act of 1963 set as a legal standard more than 45 years ago. What thee Ledbetter Act will do is resurrect claims that will be extremely difficult for companies to defend against.
Ledbetter filed an EEO complaint back in 1982 and DID complain about her pay and she lost. She went back DECADES later and sued alleging a man, deceased at the time of her suit, harassed her. Imagine trying to find the punch cards or the reel-to-reel tapes AND their functioning systems with pay records to provide statistical or relevant employee data in legal discovery. [Can you even find a functioning 5 1/2 inch floppy drive these days with legacy software?] How many companies also keep appraisal information that dates back decades? I can't remember what an employee did a couple of years ago much less dating back to the prior century - so how good is the testimony going to be from either the employee or from management? No wait, the employee will recall that they were near perfection and the hardest worker in the shop -- yada yada yada.
Even with most crimes there is a statute of limitations, but not with a potentially subjective pay determination that dates back years??? The courts will naturally defer to statistical "evidence" that will not take into account all the aspects of an employee's pay: their performance, their work habits, their attendance, their effort or lack thereof. So, I guess we will also employ a number of statisticians as well.
All Congress need do is look at how pay is set for Federal employees. It is highly regimented system based upon years of service and has explicit limits on pay increases and promotions. You often have a new employee who is performing much better than a long term employee but getting paid much less. It may not be entirely fair but it is a system that causes the effect (which is equal on men, women and minorities).
This Act will do nothing to help our economy except make trial lawyers a bit richer. That is not the stimulus our country needs. The 180 day period to make a complaint in the private sector was more than fair.

Mike from Virginia of VA 6:05PM February 02, 2009

Most articles don't mention what Alfred just said.
Goodyear said that there was no discrimination, she just didn't deserve to be paid as much because she wasn't as good an employee. But, since it was so long ago, how can they prove that?
That's why they need the 180 day limit. Otherwise, a company could face a multi-million dollar law suit for discrimination that never existed. And the burden of proof is almost always put on the employer, rather than the employee.
What this will lead to is making sure everyone is paid exactly the same, so they can't sue. Nevermind that this guy is doing twice the work, if they give him a raise, his coworker will sue for discrimination in thirty years. and she'll win too.

UnCommon Sense of IN 5:31PM January 31, 2009

Idiots like Tom will march like lemmings without actually figuring out what she did or how well she performed her job to merit her pay.
A little research on some other sites tells me that she was among the lowest ranked employees in regards to her evaluations and was to be among the first to be laid off if that time came.
Of course, waiting long enough for her supervisor that was in charge of these evaluations doesn't hurt her pity party, either!

Alfred B of TX 2:04AM January 31, 2009

The "reasoning" behind the statement "But the merits of the law are actually fairly controversial. After all, President Bush didn't support it." is totally non-existent. Whether the former President supported it or not is not an indicator of controversy.
More to the point, the arguments against the Ledbetter act promulgated by the WSJ, Ms. Dealey, and the above commenter "not good" are totally specious: Someone who has been receiving lower pay for years as the result of discrimination at the point of hiring deserves compensation from the company even if it has been reorganized and/or control has transferred to other owners; someone whose benefits are lower as the result of discriminatory hiring and/or pay practices deserve to be compensated for being cheated in the past by those who cheated them; yet Mr. Dealey and the Journal act as if those outcomes would be travesties. Why should the current ownership of, say GE get away with earning extra profit because of discriminatory actions taken decades ago?

Krystof of NY 6:11PM January 30, 2009

Let's get it over with and give everybody the same pay. Why should most men make less than Hillary Clinton? Shouldn't all pay be based on whining about discrimination so loudly and aggressively that a nuisance payoff is made?

Luther of IL 2:39PM January 30, 2009

Do we know if the men being paid more than Lily started the same time as her? Did they have more seniority? Does anyone one know why Goodyear decided to pay her less? I don't know what my coworkers make and I don't care. I know how much I make and I will decide if I feel it is fair or not.

Adrien B. of ME 11:50AM January 30, 2009

We're punishing older, stabler, more-established companies for common practices from that time.
Okay so there's a bill floating about suggesting making incandescent (normal) light bulbs illegal because they're energy inefficient (maybe they cut down on your heating bill though). Does that mean we should fine you for not using those light bulbs 10 years ago? No! Retroactive litigation is retarded.
Furthermore, even as a woman I don't believe women were only paid less as a means to keep them down, but that men were paid more to support a family. A working woman was usually single. "Family" men got promoted to higher paying positions, and those salaries were designed with the idea that they would provide for a wife and your 2.5 kids, a dog, and a house in the suburbs, annual vacation etc.
Now we pay someone an "equal" amount, which means they get enough to support half of a household or so, if that. Now there's nobody to run the household, which is part of the reason that we eat out more and get fat, don't manage our finances well, buy luxury crap we don't need to lower our increasing amounts of stress, and our children are raised in institutions and by the media.
I think we need to have the option to have a breadwinner and a homemaker. A homemaker can work part time or in a lower key job too. Male or female it doesn't matter. How many people have to pass over their passion because they need to make X number of dollars to compete with their spouse or make ends meet? How many people are too busy for a relationship, too busy for a family, too busy to take care of themselves, and too stressed from being too busy? Now careers also need further and further education too. Nobody has time to volunteer!
I think the whole situation is a little sad

Hello of MN 11:23AM January 30, 2009